Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by theorangebluewinagain, Aug 10, 2013.
Actually, hypotheses, to be exact.
Thank you MD for your ownage of MJW in this thread. It's been a fun read.
Correlation is math. If one thing goes up in concert with another, there is correlation. How much depends upon the commonality of the slope of the lines. If they go in opposite directions, it is call negative correlation.
Correlation is not always causation.
So, I gave you three sets of events; more liberal gun laws, increasing guns per person and a steady rates of gun ownerships per household.
I then said that liberals insisted they would all CAUSE increases in violent crime. But just the opposite happened. But what I did not say is that gun law changes and gun owner ownership per person and household caused the decrease in violent crime.
That said, there does appear to be negative correlation. Crime is going down, gun ownership per person is going up and gun freedom has been going up.
Like the commercial says, it's not complicated.
When you guys finish your circle jerk, be sure and enjoy a quiet cigarette.
"Correlation is not always causation." Really? Who would have thunk it? /eyeroll
To be correlated, the trends must be related in some way—theoretically those policies/trends you stated might possibly be given the intent of the policy and the alleged timing—but it takes testing these relationships, i.e. measuring them in order to make such a determination, not just stating it as some self-evident fact, as you have. But that's not all; the trends must also be interdependent; that is, the movement of one trend is conditioned in some way on the movement of another. This also takes measurement. Only when there is interdependence, will you have correlation of trends. You have yet to demonstrate this as well. So we can only call what you have done a hypothesis.
You are wrong because you either don't understand the most fundamental elements of statistical correlation or you are just ignoring them. And no amount of blustering can change it. This is the point, and it's not complicated.
As for MD, he showed that there was no correlation with at least one of the relationships you stated; that is how it’s done.
#1 Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent.
#2 A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy discovered that nations that have more guns tend to have less crime.
#3 The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater than the nine European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership.
#4 Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws…
With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.
#5 The United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.
#6 The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011.* During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000.
#7 Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.
#8 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.
#9 The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011.
#10 Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States.* In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK.* In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year.* Do we really want to be more like the UK?
#11 The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
#12 The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
#13 The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.
#14 The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
#15 Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.
#16 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States.* So has this reduced crime?* Of course not.* As I wrote about recently, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“.* If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.
#17 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89% decline in burglaries.
#18 According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century.* The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered.
I posted it here before and am too lazy to find it - But violent crime in the US has been dropping steadily for 400 years. There was a temporary blip up in the mid 20th century, but its a steady downward trend that transcends most outside factors. Of course people will try and appropriate it to gun control, gun liberalization etc, but that's just folks seeing things through their own lens.
ahh, the 18 alleged facts that will "silence" any anti gunner, so says one of the sites that is hosting that list.
Since I am not an anti-gunner, I guess I can speak up about it. Just to clarify abit about Chicago's crime rate trends; a one year change could just be random variation and not have anything to do with any gun laws. Data come from the UCR.
Here's the link with sources. Sadly, I clicked a few more of the sources and was a little let down.
The violent crime comparison between US and UK has been quoted here often, and it's quite misleading. Many more crimes are considered violent in the UK than in the US. I didn't look it up this time, but I recall that bike theft was considered a violent crime.
OK, looked it up:
Yep, and nearly all of them were committed by lefties/liberals/Democrats too.
Cool, thanks. I did not know that.
Both of those so-called facts simply aren't true.
The problem with these types of websites, imo (on the left and the right), is that they are so thoroughly partisan that they can take what may be a fact, and distort it by stripping it of any context, such that it is then held out to mean something that it either isn't or the opposite of what it actually is. Case in point, Chicago's violent crime; sure it went up but the twenty-year trend shows something very different.
As for international comparisons river is spot on. They can define crimes differently, report crimes at vastly different rates, must also address other structural differences that might give rise to crime rate differences.
Yep, just in the last 30 years there have been at least 19 mass shooting incidents in states that don't have so-called strict gun laws.
Actually, it is true
Good god. Texas, Arizona, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma ... none of them allow citizens to carry guns?
From Mother Jones. Other sites have documented them too.